Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 12 cited by

Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The apparent DESI preference for thawing quintessence disappears when Bayesian priors are widened to less data-informed ranges.

desk verdict A clean prior-volume demonstration that the DESI thawing-quintessence preference vanishes under wider priors, but the 'no evidence' claim overreaches because no Bayes factor is computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13637 v4 pith:MHPN2KZV submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-phhep-th

Guillaume Payeur , Evan McDonough , Robert Brandenberger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-phhep-th
keywords darkenergythawingquintessencecosmologicalconstantBayesianpriorspriorvolumeeffectDESIbaryonacousticoscillationsequationofstatesupernovae
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether recent DESI-era observations really favor thawing quintessence—dark energy caused by a scalar field that 'unfreezes' and starts evolving—over a plain cosmological constant. The authors fit a tanh-shaped equation of state designed to mimic thawing quintessence to Planck, DESI BAO, and supernova data, and show that the apparent preference appears only when the Bayesian prior is deliberately concentrated on the region the data already likes. When the prior is widened to ranges they argue are physically better motivated, the posterior for the present-day equation of state peaks at $w_0=-1$, the cosmological-constant value, and the evidence disappears. The reason is a prior-volume effect: the parameter region where $w(z)\approx -1$ is vast and only mildly disfavored by the likelihood, so it dominates the posterior once the prior stops suppressing it. If correct, current data give no Bayesian reason to prefer thawing quintessence over $\Lambda$CDM.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the toy-model equation of state $w(z)=\frac{\Delta w}{2}(1-\tanh\frac{z-z_c}{\Delta z})-1$, which forces $w$ to approach $-1$ at high redshift and allows a monotonic tanh transition of amplitude $\Delta w$, width $\Delta z$, and center $z_c$, capturing thawing quintessence in a model-independent way. The argument turns on comparing two priors on $(\Delta w,\log_{10}\Delta z,z_c)$: an 'informed' prior that pins the transition to be rapid and recent, and a 'less informed' prior with wider ranges. The mechanism that kills the preference is prior volume: the $\Lambda$CDM-like region $\Delta w\to 0$ occupies a huge volume in the wider prior and is only mildly penalized by the likelihood, so it wins the marginalized posterior.

What would settle it

A concrete way to test the claim: compute the Bayes factor between this thawing-quintessence toy model and $\Lambda$CDM using priors on $\Delta z$ and $z_c$ derived from an explicit ensemble of quintessence potentials (e.g. exponential or axion-like), rather than the paper's hand-chosen ranges. If that calculation yields a Bayes factor clearly favoring thawing quintessence, the paper's conclusion would be overturned. Alternatively, if a profile-likelihood analysis that is prior-independent shows a strong preference for $w_0\neq -1$, the 'no evidence' conclusion would need qualification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the DESI-driven preference for dynamical dark energy is not robust: it is an artifact of a data-informed prior. Working with the toy model $w(z)=\frac{\Delta w}{2}(1-\tanh\frac{z-z_c}{\Delta z})-1$, the authors find that with an informed prior, the marginalized posterior on $w_0$ peaks at $-0.91$ and excludes $-1$, but with a less informed prior, $\pi(\log_{10}\Delta z)=\mathrm{U}[-1.5,0.5]$ and $\pi(z_c)=\mathrm{U}[-2,2]$, the posterior peaks at $w_0=-1$ with upper limits $-0.97$ ($1\sigma$) and $-0.83$ ($2\sigma$). The likelihood itself still prefers a transition away from $-1$—the maximum-likelihood $\Delta\chi^2$ relative to $\Lambda$CDM is $-13.7$—but the volume of parameter space with $w(z)\approx -1$ overwhelms that preference in the posterior. The paper concludes that, under Bayesian inference with priors not informed by the data, thawing quintessence is not favored over the cosmological constant.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion stands or falls with the claim that the wider ranges $\pi(\log_{10}\Delta z)=\mathrm{U}[-1.5,0.5]$ and $\pi(z_c)=\mathrm{U}[-2,2]$ are the physically better motivated priors; that choice is made by hand and justified by one exponential-potential example, not derived from first principles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct corollary: the 2–4$\sigma$ preference for evolving dark energy reported in CPL-based analyses of the same data does not survive translation into a thawing-quintessence model with less data-informed priors.
  • Future dark-energy constraints should report sensitivity to prior choices, since posterior conclusions can flip when prior ranges are widened.
  • If correct, current Planck plus DESI plus supernova data are fully consistent with a cosmological constant within this toy model, so no new physics is required to fit them.
  • The same prior-volume reasoning used here for thawing quintessence can be applied to other parametrizations of dynamical dark energy before claiming detection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's 'less informed prior' is still a hand-picked range; a Bayesian purist could argue that the truly prior-free statement is unavailable, so the robust claim is that the preference is prior-dependent, not that $\Lambda$CDM is true.
  • The same prior-volume mechanism may apply to other apparent anomalies in cosmology, such as early dark energy or Hubble-tension solutions, whenever a small high-likelihood region competes with a large near-$\Lambda$CDM region.
  • A direct test of the paper's conclusion would be to repeat the analysis in specific field-theory quintessence models (e.g. exponential potentials) with priors derived from particle-physics parameters rather than the phenomenological tanh parameters, and compare Bayes factors.
  • The paper's reasoning suggests future surveys should focus on statistics that are less prior-sensitive, such as profile likelihoods or likelihood-ratio maps, when claiming evidence for dynamical dark energy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper asks whether current cosmological data prefer thawing quintessence over a cosmological constant, using a three-parameter tanh parametrization of the dark-energy equation of state, Eq. (4), which forces w(z) to approach -1 at high redshift. The authors analyze DESI BAO data jointly with Planck 2018 and with PantheonPlus or DES supernovae, using MCMC in cobaya/camb. They compare an 'informed' prior that fixes log10(Δz) = -1.5 and restricts zc to [0, 0.25] with a 'less informed' prior with log10(Δz) uniform in [-1.5, 0.5] and zc uniform in [-2, 2]. Under the informed prior the marginalized posterior for w0 peaks at -0.91; under the less informed prior it peaks at w0 = -1. The paper attributes this to a prior-volume effect and concludes that there is no evidence for thawing quintessence over ΛCDM. Appendices repeat the analysis for other data combinations, isolate the effect of widening the zc prior, and provide one explicit exponential-quintessence example whose tanh-fit parameters lie outside the informed prior.

Significance. The paper is unusually transparent: it explicitly labels the informed prior as data-informed and engineered to produce a preference, and it identifies the dominant source of suppression in Appendix C as the widened zc range. The analysis is reproducible in standard tools and covers several data combinations. If the headline claim were supported by a model-comparison statistic, the paper would be a valuable cautionary result about prior-volume effects in DESI-driven dark-energy claims. As it stands, the paper convincingly demonstrates that the marginalized posterior for w0 is prior-dependent, but it does not actually compute the Bayesian evidence needed to support the claim that evidence for thawing quintessence has disappeared.

major comments (3)
  1. [III D / Abstract / Conclusion] The central conclusion that 'the evidence for thawing quintessence disappears' is a model-comparison statement, but no Bayes factor or evidence ratio is computed. Section III D reports Δχ²_MAP = -13.7 between the best fit of Eq. (4) and the Δw = 0 boundary; this indicates that the likelihood itself prefers a nontrivial transition, and whether that constitutes evidence is exactly what the Occam penalty, i.e., the evidence ratio, decides. The fact that the marginalized posterior for w0 peaks at -1 under the less informed prior is a statement about parameter estimation in the full model, not about the relative probability of the full model versus ΛCDM. Because ΛCDM is nested at Δw = 0, a Savage-Dickey or nested-sampling evidence computation would directly address the headline question. Without such a computation, the conclusion should be reframed as 'the posterior for w0 is strongly prior-dependent' rather than 'there is no evidence for thawing quintessence over ΛCDM.'
  2. [III A / Appendix C] The conclusion depends on the hand-chosen ranges defining the 'less informed' prior, and the paper does not establish that these ranges are the physically better-motivated choice. Appendix C shows that widening zc from [0, 0.25] to [-2, 2] is the dominant cause of the suppression, and zc < 0 corresponds to transitions centered in the future, which by construction give w0 ≈ -1 at observable redshifts. This means the suppression is largely a prior-volume effect from adding unconstrained parameter space, not an independent physical determination that thawing models are disfavored. The single exponential-quintessence example in Appendix B is helpful but not sufficient to justify the less informed range as uniquely better motivated. I would like to see either evidence ratios as a function of prior range, priors derived from a distribution of explicit quintessence potentials, or an explicit caveat that the result is a sensitivity demonstration rather than a choice grounded in first principles.
  3. [III D] The sentence 'considering priors even less constraining than our less informed prior would only increase this suppression' is too strong as stated. It is plausible for the posterior mode of w0 in the full model, but it is not generally true for the Bayes factor between the full model and ΛCDM, since the prior dependence of an evidence ratio is not monotonic in the prior width when the models are nested. Please either qualify this statement to refer to the marginalized posterior only, or provide a demonstration for the evidence ratio.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III A, less-informed prior bullet] The bullet defining the less informed prior contains a typo: 'π(log10 ∆w) = U[−1.5, 0.5]' should read 'π(log10 ∆z) = U[−1.5, 0.5]'.
  2. [III B] The sentence 'the lower confidence limits on w0 are −0.90 and −0.98 at 1σ and 2σ respectively' appears inconsistent with nested confidence intervals; a 2σ lower limit should be at or below the 1σ lower limit. Please check whether these are upper limits or whether the ordering is reversed.
  3. [Appendix D / Tables III-IV] Table III notes that the quoted intervals are credible intervals except for w0, where two-tail equal-area confidence limits are used, while Table IV does not carry a similar note even though the same mixture of conventions is applied. Please make the convention consistent in both tables.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'physically better motivated ranges' is stronger than what is demonstrated; the less informed prior is wider and less data-informed, but the paper does not derive it from physical first principles. Consider using 'wider, less data-informed ranges' in the abstract to match the body's caveats.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the engineered 'informed' prior is explicitly disclosed, and the central claim is an honest prior-sensitivity demonstration rather than a hidden fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a prior-sensitivity statement: a data-informed prior produces an apparent preference for thawing quintessence, while a wider 'less informed' prior suppresses it. The preference from the informed prior is admittedly constructed by design — the paper states that this prior 'is deliberately data informed, in a way that creates an apparent preference' — but the paper labels it 'apparent' and uses it only as a contrast, not as the load-bearing conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the less informed prior is chosen by hand and justified by physical reasoning and one explicit quintessence example, but choosing a prior is not a circular derivation. The paper also limits its conclusion to 'the context of Bayesian inference and of our toy model for thawing quintessence.' The self-citations to early dark energy prior-volume analyses [43,45,46,67] are used as context for a standard Bayesian effect, and the paper independently demonstrates the mechanism through its reported Delta chi^2 and the mixed-prior decomposition in Appendix C; these citations are not the sole support for the central inference. The absence of a Bayes factor and the hand-picked prior range are legitimate statistical-robustness concerns, but they are not circularity: the paper does not claim to derive an external result from its own assumptions in a way that reduces to definitional equivalence. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and transparent about its prior choices.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the tanh parametrization, the chosen prior ranges, and the Bayesian principle that priors should not be data-informed. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Δw = < 0.781 (informed, 68%); < 1.22 (less informed, 68%)
    Amplitude of the transition in w(z); fitted to data.
  • log10 Δz = -0.65 ± 0.49 (less informed); fixed to -1.5 (informed)
    Width of the transition in redshift.
  • zc = < 0.0576 (informed, 68%); < -0.554 (less informed, 68%)
    Center redshift of the transition.
  • Prior range on log10 Δz (less informed) = U[-1.5, 0.5]
    Chosen by hand to allow transitions of different widths.
  • Prior range on zc (less informed) = U[-2, 2]
    Chosen by hand to be unbiased about past or future transitions.
  • Prior range on zc (informed) = U[0, 0.25]
    Chosen to match the region preferred by CPL studies.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh parametrization of Eq. 4 (w(z) = (Δw/2)(1 - tanh((z - zc)/Δz)) - 1) adequately captures the behavior of thawing quintessence.
    The paper states it is a toy model capturing the essence of thawing quintessence in a model-independent way (Sec. II).
  • ad hoc to paper The 'less informed prior' ranges (log10 Δz in [-1.5, 0.5], zc in [-2, 2]) are the physically better motivated choice.
    The paper asserts this prior is less data-informed, but the exact bounds are chosen by hand and justified only by one illustrative quintessence model (Appendix B) and the general Bayesian principle that priors should not be data-informed. This is the key subjective input that drives the conclusion.
  • domain assumption Bayesian priors should not be informed by the data used for the inference itself.
    Cited via Trotta 2008 [42] and used to reject the informed prior.
  • domain assumption The standard ΛCDM parameters (ns, As, Ωb h^2, Ωc h^2, θMC, τ) have broad uniform priors as in [66].
    Sec. III A.
  • domain assumption The PPF framework correctly computes dark energy perturbations for the parametrized w(z).
    Sec. III A, using Fang, Hu, Lewis 2008 [63].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHPN2KZV

@misc{pith2026241113637,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do Observations Prefer Thawing Quintessence?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHPN2KZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13637}
}
read the original abstract

In light of recent observations by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), we study evidence for thawing quintessence over a cosmological constant as dark energy, with emphasis on the effect of the choice of priors. Working with a parametrization for the equation of state parameter motivated by the theory, we analyse the DESI BAO data jointly with Planck 2018 and Pantheon+ or Dark Energy Survey supernovae data, and find a preference for thawing quintessence compared to a bare cosmological constant only if we use priors which are heavily informed by the data itself. If we extend the priors to physically better motivated ranges, the evidence for thawing quintessence disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13637 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The toy model in Eq. 4 for the equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-tail equal-area confidence limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Confidence limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: When selecting instead a less data informed and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fig.3. However, it is evident that the suppression is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-tail equal-area confidence limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Confidence limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Equation of state parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Marginalized posterior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Triangle plot featuring the posterior distribution on the quintessence model parameters ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Triangle plot featuring the posterior distribution on the quintessence model parameters ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Evolving Dark Energy from the Back-Reaction of Cosmological Perturbations

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Back-reaction of cosmological inhomogeneities can make an effective dark energy with a time-dependent equation of state and no phantom crossing, even for a global average.

  2. Could We Be Fooled about Phantom Crossing?

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fitting 1,000 mock universes generated from a non-phantom quintessence model gives a 3.2% false-positive rate for the observed phantom-crossing preference in DESI+CMB+supernova data.

  3. Simple quintessence models in light of DESI-BAO observations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Thawing quintessence with linear or quadratic potentials is favored over LambdaCDM only when the DESY5 supernova catalog is used; with Pantheon+ or Union3 the preference is mild.

  4. Examining Quintessence Models with DESI Data

    astro-ph.CO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    NEC-obeying hilltop and exponential quintessence models give at most marginal improvement over the cosmological constant against DESI 2024 data, and the prominent k=10 hilltop 'excellent mimic' claim is an artifact of...

  5. Physical vs phantom dark energy after DESI: thawing quintessence in a curved background

    astro-ph.CO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Curved thawing quintessence models fit DESI DR2 BAO, CMB, and Pantheon+ data as well as the flat w0-wa parametrization, so phantom crossing is model-dependent rather than required.

  6. Understanding acoustic scale observations: the one-sided fight against $\Lambda$

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Under the null energy condition, BAO distances can deviate from Lambda-CDM only in one direction, and DESI's main apparent tensions sit on the forbidden side.

  7. General parametrization for energy density of quintessence field

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A step-like parametrization of quintessence energy density reproduces all three known dark energy dynamics across redshifts, but cosmological data still prefer ΛCDM except in the CPL model.

  8. Cosmological constraints on Galileon dark energy with broken shift symmetry

    astro-ph.CO 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A broken shift symmetric cubic Galileon with a quadratic potential, fitted to DESI DR2, supernova and CMB data, is strongly favored over ΛCDM for DESY5/Union3 supernovae and reproduces the phantom-crossing equation of...

  9. Robustness of dark energy phenomenology across different parameterizations

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The viability of minimally and non-minimally coupled quintessence models is robust across CPL, JBP, BA, and EXP parameterizations, with all four reproducing the models' predicted observables accurately.

  10. Is excess smoothing of Planck CMB ansiotropy data partially responsible for evidence for dark energy dynamics in other $w(z)$CDM parametrizations?

    astro-ph.CO 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In three new w(z)CDM parametrizations, Planck CMB plus non-CMB data favor evolving dark energy over a cosmological constant at roughly 2 sigma when the Planck lensing anomaly parameter is fixed, and at roughly 1 sigma...

  11. On the evidence of dynamical dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Under a one-parameter thawing dark energy model, DESI BAO data barely moves the equation of state and the preference over ΛCDM is weaker than in the CPL model.

  12. Observational constraints on early time non-phantom behaviour of dynamical dark energy

    astro-ph.CO 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Early scaling dark energy is constrained to be less than about one percent at matter-radiation equality and is disfavored by model selection, while late-time CPL dynamics show only a weak preference away from ΛCDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 12 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Li, X.-D

    M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, and Y. Wang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 56, 525 (2011), arXiv:1103.5870 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 834, 316 (2010), arXiv:0912.5503 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B 474, 235 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602315

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    V. F. Mukhanov, L. R. W. Abramo, and R. H. Bran- denberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1624 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9609026

    work page arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    R. H. Brandenberger, in 18th IAP Colloquium on the Nature of Dark Energy: Observational and Theoretical Results on the Accelerating Universe (2002) arXiv:hep- th/0210165

    work page arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Bedroya and C

    A. Bedroya and C. Vafa, JHEP 09, 123 (2020), arXiv:1909.11063 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Bedroya, R

    A. Bedroya, R. Brandenberger, M. Loverde, and C. Vafa, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103502 (2020), arXiv:1909.11106 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Brandenberger, LHEP 2021, 198 (2021), arXiv:2102.09641 [hep-th]

    R. Brandenberger, LHEP 2021, 198 (2021), arXiv:2102.09641 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Palti, Fortsch

    E. Palti, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1900037 (2019), arXiv:1903.06239 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    van Beest, J

    M. van Beest, J. Calder´ on-Infante, D. Mirfend- ereski, and I. Valenzuela, Phys. Rept. 989, 1 (2022), arXiv:2102.01111 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang, and C. Vafa, (2022), arXiv:2212.06187 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa, (2018), arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. Obied, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 784, 271 (2018), arXiv:1806.09718 [hep- th]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Heisenberg, M

    L. Heisenberg, M. Bartelmann, R. Brandenberger, and A. Refregier, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123502 (2018), arXiv:1808.02877 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chevallier and D

    M. Chevallier and D. Polarski, International Journal of Modern Physics D 10, 213 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0009008

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    E. V. Linder, Physical Review Letters 90, 091301 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. (DES), (2024), arXiv:2401.02929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Roy Choudhury and T

    S. Roy Choudhury and T. Okumura, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 976, L11 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flat $w 0w a$CDM cosmological param- eterization result,

    C.-G. Park, J. d. C. Perez, and B. Ratra, “Using non-DESI data to confirm and strengthen the DESI 2024 spatially-flat $w 0w a$CDM cosmological param- eterization result,” (2024), arXiv:2405.00502 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    W. J. Wolf and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review D 108, 103519 (2023), arXiv:2310.07482 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,

    D. Shlivko and P. Steinhardt, “Assessing observational constraints on dark energy,” (2024), arXiv:2405.03933 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    W. J. Wolf, C. Garc ´ ıa-Garc ´ ıa, D. J. Bartlett, and P. G. Ferreira, Physical Review D 110, 083528 (2024), arXiv:2408.17318 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep- ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Interpret- ing DESI 2024 BAO: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?

    I. D. Gialamas, G. H¨ utsi, K. Kannike,et al. , “Interpret- ing DESI 2024 BAO: late-time dynamical dark energy or a local effect?” (2024), arXiv:2406.07533 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cos- mological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Cos- mological tests of quintessence in quantum gravity,” (2024), arXiv:2410.21243 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-th]

    2024

  18. [26]

    The Ex- cess of JWST Bright Galaxies: a Possible Origin in the Ground State of Dynamical Dark Energy in the light of DESI 2024 Data,

    N. Menci, A. A. Sen, and M. Castellano, “The Ex- cess of JWST Bright Galaxies: a Possible Origin in the Ground State of Dynamical Dark Energy in the light of DESI 2024 Data,” (2024), arXiv:2410.22940 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    DESI constraints on α-attractor inflation- ary models,

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, “DESI constraints on α-attractor inflation- ary models,” (2024), arXiv:2410.00827 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Con- straints on Redshift-Binned Dark Energy using DESI BAO Data,

    Y.-H. Pang, X. Zhang, and Q.-G. Huang, “Con- straints on Redshift-Binned Dark Energy using DESI BAO Data,” (2024), arXiv:2408.14787 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Inferring dark energy properties from the scale factor parametrisation,

    U. Mukhopadhayay, S. Haridasu, A. A. Sen, and S. Dhawan, “Inferring dark energy properties from the scale factor parametrisation,” (2024), arXiv:2407.10845 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Consistent Theories for the DESI dark energy fit,

    A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, “Consistent Theories for the DESI dark energy fit,” (2024), arXiv:2406.08459 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Com- prehensive Study of k-essence Model: Dynamical Sys- tem Analysis and Observational Constraints from Lat- est Type Ia Supernova and BAO Observations,

    S. Hussain, S. Nelleri, and K. Bhattacharya, “Com- prehensive Study of k-essence Model: Dynamical Sys- tem Analysis and Observational Constraints from Lat- est Type Ia Supernova and BAO Observations,” (2024), arXiv:2406.07179 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep- ph, physics:physics]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data,

    N. Roy, “Dynamical dark energy in the light of DESI 2024 data,” (2024), arXiv:2406.00634 [astro-ph, physics:gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,

    S. Bhattacharya, G. Borghetto, A. Malhotra, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Cosmological constraints on curved quintessence,” (2024), arXiv:2405.17396 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quanti- fying Scalar Field Dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements,

    K. V. Berghaus, J. A. Kable, and V. Miranda, “Quanti- fying Scalar Field Dynamics with DESI 2024 Y1 BAO measurements,” (2024), arXiv:2404.14341 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tada and T

    Y. Tada and T. Terada, Physical Review D 109, L121305 (2024), arXiv:2404.05722 [astro-ph, physics:gr- qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?

    C.-G. Park, J. d. C. Perez, and B. Ratra, “Is the w0waCDM cosmological parameterization evidence for dark energy dynamics partially caused by the excess smoothing of Planck CMB anisotropy data?” (2024), arXiv:2410.13627

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravita- tional lensing,

    P. Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. VIII. Gravita- tional lensing,” (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,

    P. Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,” (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. G. Adame et al. (DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03000 [astro-ph.CO]. 13

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Brout et al

    D. Brout et al. , Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022), arXiv:2202.04077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Trotta, Contemporary Physics 49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    R. Trotta, Contemporary Physics 49, 71 (2008), arXiv:0803.4089 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. M. Ivanov, E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. Simonovi´ c, M. W. Toomey, S. Alexander, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103502 (2020), arXiv:2006.11235 [astro- ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Herold, E

    L. Herold, E. G. M. Ferreira, and E. Komatsu, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 929, L16 (2022), arXiv:2112.12140 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    McDonough, J

    E. McDonough, J. C. Hill, M. M. Ivanov, A. La Posta, and M. W. Toomey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, 2430003 (2024), arXiv:2310.19899 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. W. Toomey, M. M. Ivanov, and E. McDonough, (2024), arXiv:2409.09029 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Akrami, M

    Y. Akrami, M. Sasaki, A. R. Solomon, and V. Var- danyan, Physics Letters B 819, 136427 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Anguelova, J

    L. Anguelova, J. Dumancic, R. Gass, and L. Wijeward- hana, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2022, 018 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Anguelova, J

    L. Anguelova, J. Dumancic, R. Gass, and L. C. R. Wi- jewardhana, The European Physical Journal C 84, 365 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    J. R. Eskilt, Y. Akrami, A. R. Solomon, and V. Var- danyan, Physical Review D 106, 023512 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Quintessence: an analytical study, with theoretical and observational applications,

    D. Andriot, “Quintessence: an analytical study, with theoretical and observational applications,” (2024), arXiv:2410.17182 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep- ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Swampland Conjectures Constraints on Dark En- ergy from a Highly Curved Field Space,

    G. Payeur, E. McDonough, and R. Brandenberger, “Swampland Conjectures Constraints on Dark En- ergy from a Highly Curved Field Space,” (2024), arXiv:2405.05304 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep- ph, physics:hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Quintessence: A Review,

    S. Tsujikawa, “Quintessence: A Review,” (2013), arXiv:1304.1961 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics D 15, 1753 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603057

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. Shafieloo, The Astrophysical Journal 902, 58 (2020), arXiv:2001.05103 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics- Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data,

    K. Lodha et al. , “DESI 2024: Constraints on Physics- Focused Aspects of Dark Energy using DESI DR1 BAO Data,” (2024), arXiv:2405.13588 [astro-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lewis and S

    A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Physical Review D 66, 103511 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205436

    2002 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Lewis, Physical Review D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph]

    A. Lewis, Physical Review D 87, 103529 (2013), arXiv:1304.4473 [astro-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics 2021, 057 (2021), arXiv:2005.05290 [astro-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    ASCL.net - Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,

    “ASCL.net - Cobaya: Bayesian analysis in cosmology,”

  53. [61]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, The Astrophys- ical Journal 538, 473 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9911177

    2000 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2012, 027 (2012), arXiv:1201.3654 [astro-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    W. Fang, W. Hu, and A. Lewis, Physical Review D 78, 087303 (2008), arXiv:0808.3125 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Science 7, 457 (1992)

    1992

  57. [65]

    GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,

    A. Lewis, “GetDist: a Python package for analysing Monte Carlo samples,” (2019), arXiv:1910.13970 [astro- ph, physics:physics]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Planck Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A6 (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. C. Hill, E. McDonough, M. W. Toomey, and S. Alexander, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043507 (2020), arXiv:2003.07355 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Notari, M

    A. Notari, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, (2024), arXiv:2411.11685 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Laureijs et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Laureijs et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1110.3193 (2011), arXiv:1110.3193 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.